Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3880 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Humphries, these are already in here. The Assembly has set the priority for how the courts look at this. What is more, in a review case not so long ago, the courts found that the judge was right to have taken into account some of these issues. It seems to me that all we have is a bit of gut reaction from this Minister.

I will deal in a moment with the issue of prevalence of crime. Prevalence of crime is given a high priority by this Minister. First of all, I will deal with the purposes for which the sentence is imposed. They include: To punish the offender in a way that is appropriate in all the circumstances and to deter the offender or other persons from committing the same or a similar offence. That is in clause 4. If we give that the highest priority, are we not turning around the real goal we want in a just and equitable society, just to feel good? That is what it will do, and it will make certain members of the community feel much better. This is just the thumping of the same drum, the law and order drum. Here we go; we are getting a bit close to an election; we have a bit of motivation from one of our judges; so, let us race down this path.

Mr Humphries: Two.

MR MOORE: No; I think not, Mr Humphries. I think you are on the wrong line. It seems to me that the notion of denunciation that we hear as well is also a part of the same tub thumping that we have been talking about. The legislation already deals with punishment particularly well.

There is another issue, I think, that is important. Clause 5 of the legislation, as I read it, is effectively consequential upon clause 4; but clause 6 is a very interesting one. Section 429B currently reads:

The court shall not, in determining the sentence to be imposed on a person, increase the severity of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed because of any of the following:

... ... ...

(e) the prevalence of the offence;

... ... ...

Under the current Act, the court is not going to take into account the prevalence of the offence. Why not? Well, it is very simple. What we will get, if we allow this amendment to go through, is a situation where the public perception of prevalence drives the way that somebody is punished. In January we will have somebody appear before the court and they will be given a two-year penalty for a particular offence. In April somebody else will appear before the court, having committed the same offence, and will be given a four-year penalty; but, in the meantime, we have had the local media running a major campaign on that particular crime. So, the perception of the prevalence of the offence is out there; the perception that there is a huge increase in crime will be there. This perception is what happens all the time. Our statistics are showing us that we live in probably the safest city in Australia; and, as such, it is probably one of the safest cities in the world.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .